Some other day I read an article about the reaction of the Ministry of Culture to the ongoing works on Karlovo most. It wasn't a good one. Apparently the comission sent there by the ministry was horrified by the results. Today, in a routine walk, I crossed the bridge and saw with my own eyes one of the things which impressed so negatively that comission: I think as completely senseless the use of brand new chiseled stones; even worst if they are now mixed with the old ones. Some parts of the bridge now look like a chessboard: dark stone, white stone, dark stone, white stone.... Come on, it's a top monument of the country, I can't understand how it was possible such a careless assembling. Couldn't they just apply some chemical treatment to artifially age the new stones? Any thoughts on this?
"Everything fears time, yet time fears the pyramids." The Charles bridge was built from sandstone which is not a durable material. Replacing old damaged blocks with new ones is then natural and never-ending process. Nowadays only 15 to 20 percent blocks are original. In my opinion the artificial aging of the new blocks is not necessary. Personally I have no problem with the motley look.
